The foreign-policy behavior of weak states, conventional wisdom holds, is largely determined by a process of bargaining with a dominant state. Compliance with the dominant state's preferences is viewed as necessary to the maintenance of economic exchange relations that benefit the weak state. Evidence for such a theory has been found in cross-sectional correlations of aid and trade with UN voting. However, such empirical studies have ignored alternative explanations, overlooked elements of the statistical record, and failed to examine the logic of the bargaining model. The assumptions of the bargaining model are vulnerable to criticism; an alternative model emphasizes multiple constraints on the behavior of both the strong and the weak nation in an asymmetrical dyad. Reanalysis of the data uncovers strong evidence of an explanation for foreign-policy continuity rooted in dependency. Dependency permeates and transforms the political system of dependent nations, thus bringing about constrained consensus rather than compliance. Furthermore, the data provide strong evidence for an explanation of foreign-policy change in both nations that centers on regime change, not on bargaining with an external actor.

Consensus or compliance? Foreign-policy change and external dependence

The Bourgeoisie and democracy: Historical and contemporary perspectives

Dependency theory contends that Third World states which are economically dependent on core capitalist countries will develop foreign policy positions consistent with the interests of core countries. Economic dependence produces this outcome, it is argued, because the structures of dependence produce economic and political elites in the peripheral countries whose interests coincide with those of multinational corporations and core country political elites. This article examines the case of Jamaica, which, although extremely dependent economically on the United States, has experienced dramatic changes in its foreign policy since its independence in 1962. The causes of these changes are examined based on interviews with Jamaican elites in 1962, 1974, and 1982, on historical evidence, and on interviews with American policy makers and aluminum company executives. The evidence shows that though the Jamaican business elite strongly favored a very pro-U.S. foreign policy throughout the period, a large segment of the political elite affiliated with Michael Manley's People's National Party moved to a militantly Third World-oriented position that included a major offensive against the aluminum multinationals when the party was in power in the 1970s. It is argued that this policy change was a direct product of the contradictory outcomes of Jamaica's successful pursuit of a dependent development economic strategy in the 1950s and 1960s, and that such challenges to core country economic interests in foreign policy are an inherent feature of dependence which is likely to appear in other cases of successful dependent development.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2600520.pdf

Dependent Development and Foreign Policy: The Case of Jamaica

The Bourgeoisie and Democracy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives from Europe and Latin America

The attitudes, patterns of alignments, and composition of the most powerful and influential leaders in Guyana and Trinidad—selected by a two-stage positional-reputational method—are compared and the findings related to the different developmental strategies adopted by the two governments: third world socialism in the case of Guyana, and capitalism in the Trinidadian case. It is shown that clientelistic co-optation and, to a lesser extent, appeals to race can and do overcome ideologically rooted opposition to a ruling party; however, when the regime's ideological position, as reflected in its policies, is compatible with elite interests, the importance of race and clientelism declines, except for co-optation of leaders representing lower class interests. In both countries, the composition of the group of elites shows a proliferation of those representing middle- and upper-class socioeconomic sectors of the society.

Bases of Elite Support for a Regime Race, Ideology, and Clientelism as Bases for Leaders in Guyana and Trinidad

A re-study of attitudes toward global alignments among 83 leaders in 1974, 12 years after political independence, is compared with a study completed just before independence in 1961–1962 in the new Caribbean state of Jamaica. A striking decline in favorable attitudes toward Jamaica's alignment with Western nations occurred, from 71% of the leaders in 1962 to 36% in 1974. New and volunteered preferences were for alignment with Third World countries or with any country as long as Jamaica's self-interest was served. The social characteristics and differential roles of leaders affected their attitudes toward foreign affairs at both times. Older, middling educated, white and Chinese, relatively wealthy, and economic or religious leaders as opposed to political, labor, or other leaders were most likely to prefer the West in 1974. Also, the values of leaders affected their foreign-policy attitudes; Reactionaries and Conservatives, Nonegalitarians, non-Nationalists, to some extent Anglo-European identified leaders, and Authoritarians as opposed to Full Democrats were most likely to prefer the West. A path model containing six causal variables explains 54% of the variance in foreign policy attitudes in 1962 and 43% in 1974.

J. William Gibson

Papers

Independent Jamaica Faces the Outside WorldAttitudes of Elites After, Twelve Years of Nationhood